CHARACTER OF CONFINEMENT. 5 



erty and render escape impossible, may justly be deemed to 

 give possession of them to those persons who by their indus- 

 try and labor have used such means of apprehending them." i" 



But if any of these animals not subject to property are 

 killed, they are reduced into possession, and larceny may be 

 committed of their flesh and skin.^^ "The very circum- 

 stance of cutting the animal up makes it property." ^^ 



Specific instances of confinement vi^ill be discussed in the 

 later sections of the present chapter. 



3. Pursuit — Mere pursuit of a wild animal is not sufficient 

 to confer property. Where the defendant killed a fox in view 

 of the person who started, chased and was on the point of 

 seizing it with his hounds on waste land, the property was 

 held to be in the former.^* The pursuer must have wounded 

 the animal or brought it within his power and control.^* If, 

 after wounding it, the hunter continues his pursuit till even- 

 ing, then abandons it, he acquires no property, although his 

 dogs continue the chase.^® 



In the civil law "the question has been raised whether a 

 wild beast which is so wounded that it can be captured is to 

 be regarded as our immediate property. Trebatius con- 

 cluded that it was ours at once, and that it would seem to be 

 ours as long as we pursue it, but that if we desist from its pur- 

 suit, it ceases to be ours and again becomes the property of 

 the first taker. . . . The opinion of most has been that it is 

 not ours unless we have captured it, because much may 

 happen to prevent our capturing it; which is the better 

 opinion." ^^ Chancellor Kent appears to consider that this 

 principle of the civil law is the one adopted in the two cases 



" Piei-son v. Post, 3 Cai. (N. Y.) 17s, 178. 



" I Hale P. C. Sio; 2 Bish. New Crim. L., §§ 772, 775. 



"' Reg. V. Gallears, 3 New Sess. Cas. 704. 



" Pierson v. Post, supra. "Ibid. 



" Buster v. Newkirk, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 75. 



" Gai. II § 67; Salkowski's Rom. Priv. Law § 83. 



